Split Thread Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, truthers?

[willhaven]

According to Babs, not "potential hijackings," the actual 911 plot to hijack commercial airliners to use as missiles against the WTC, Pentagon, and White House.

The quote you've posted doesn't seem to specify one way or the other. You can read into it if you want, but the quote alone isn't specific.

Who? You do know who Barbara Streisand is, yes? Did you not know she is married to James Brolin, aka James Streisand? The same guy who advised the audience to check out a 911 truth website when he was on The View. The same guy who wished everyone a "Happy 911."

Now this is getting somewhere. Not that him being a truther would make Babs one, but I think that carries more weight than her quote that you've posted. But that's my interpretation anyway. Couples tend to share similar views and if he's obviously a truther there's a good chance she is too.

I'm not familiar with her husband or his quotes in regard to 9/11 conspiracies. I don't really care about what celebrities think about 9/11 or politics. I just saw you reading too much into that pretty generic quote.

You did indeed say Bush 43 was at fault. You said 911 occurred because of Bush 43's "incompetence." Knowing about 911 in advance, which is what Babs says Bush is guilty of, and not responding to the threat, regardless of the reason, produces the same result, whether Bush didn't act out of incompetence or malevolence.

But she didn't say he knew about the specific act. The quote doesn't specify.

No. She is still insane. Babs'only interest is to blame Bush 43 for 911. That has been her raison d'etre since 2002.

On its face, her quote you posted is very sane. The administration was warned of preparations for hijackings. Not sure if they did anything about it or not, but whatever they did (or didn't do), it obviously wasn't enough.

Clinton was in office for 7 years when the Cole was hit. Bush was in office for 7 months when 911 occurred.

Yet it wasn't after Bush's inauguration that we even knew for sure who attacked the USS Cole. When did Bush act on that knowledge? November 2002.

Clinton couldn't do anything unless it was killing indiscriminately. Maybe Bush didn't have an opportunity until nearly 2 years after his inauguration. Or maybe he didn't bother doing anything until he was forced to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the Commission that when the administration took office on 20 January 2001, "We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda... We received, I think, on 25 January the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear."

The Washington Post reported that, on 9 February, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden's responsibility "without hedge."

Newsweek reported that on the following day, "six days after Bush took office," the FBI "believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda."

Regardless, even according to those in the administration, Bush wasn't paying the same attention to terrorism that Clinton had been.

It is apparent that you and Babs do indeed have a lot in common.

Do tell.

And you have been thrilled with what Bush 43 did regarding U.S. security after 911?

Well, paying attention to your PDBs, continuing the work from the previous administration that you had stalled or planned to veto funding for, putting terrorism as a national security priority and listening to your terrorism experts were a good start.

 

[Cicero]

S
Why then that just proves that our favorite deluded bete noir, the 911 CTers are all Libruls and all Libruls are 911 CTers and thus all will be well on the morrow in Ciceroland, where the nice little pig-tailed girls and sweet little Norman Rockwellesque boys will be playing down by the swimming hole and there won't be no talk 'bout no colored fella in the White House redistributing the wealth of Ciceroland and paying for no Evil Health Care, because he's a Librul and thus a 911 CTer and thus evil and McCain really won, after all.

The overwhelming majority of the Truth Movement are libs. That is just a fact. But it doesn't mean all libs are troofers. If it did, the troofer websites would list all the Hollywood libs as members.

McCain won? He probably can't win re-election to the U.S. Senate.

 

[funk de fino]

I would really like to believe that Babs is a inside job truther. Unfortunately the guy who is claiming it has not supported it.

 

[Brainster]

Streisand's husband, James Brolin is certainly a 9-11 "Truther"; here he is pimping the CT nutbar website 911weknow.com on The View:



The website belongs to Sofia Shafquat, who produced, directed and narrated the 9-11 Troof film, 9-11 Mysteries: Demolitions, which pushes the controlled demolition theories at the World Trade Center.

 

[willhaven]

Oh man, that guy is obnoxious. If they're married I'd be surprised if Babs wasn't a truther.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Oh man, that guy is obnoxious. If they're married I'd be surprised if Babs wasn't a truther.

As polarizing as 9/11 is, I'd say I have to agree with this.

IMHO, the OP has proven his case to a reasonable degree.

Libs here just don't like the fact that just cuz "they" have seen the light that one can hate Bush but still come to the conclusion that there was no inside job, that others with their same political beliefs can't separate the 2 issues.

It's the same as the no planer loons vs all other twoofs. They all agree that it was an inside job, but they all have differing levels of stupidity.

 

[Cicero]

As polarizing as 9/11 is, I'd say I have to agree with this.

IMHO, the OP has proven his case to a reasonable degree.

Libs here just don't like the fact that just cuz "they" have seen the light that one can hate Bush but still come to the conclusion that there was no inside job, that others with their same political beliefs can't separate the 2 issues.

It's the same as the no planer loons vs all other twoofs. They all agree that it was an inside job, but they all have differing levels of stupidity.

Good summary.

Here are some more musings from the geopolitcal expert Babs.

"August 6, 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the US bombing of Hiroshima. The Atomic Bomb, which decimated the Japanese city and its people, was never used in combat again. This day is also the anniversary of another "bomb" that was dropped 4 years ago, this time into the lap of President Bush in the form of a memo titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.' While on yet another extended vacation at his Crawford ranch, the President chose to neglect his duties as Commander in Chief by refusing to act decisively and immediately on this impending threat, leading to the worst terrorist attack in American history. These anniversaries remind us to learn from our past actions in order to ensure a safer more secure future." Barbara Streisand August 2005

Refusing to act = LIHOP

 

[alienentity]

LIHOP implies that the government knowingly allowed the attacks to happen, that it understood the attacks would happen, and still refused to act.

There is no clear evidence to support that kind of claim. Indecision or lack of action is not actually LIHOP.

'LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.'

from Wiki

And another definition elsewhere is much more pointed:
'furthermore these forewarnings were intentionally ignored, and allowed to happen, in order to have an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor.'
http://www.halexandria.org/dward255.htm

This is not what Streisand's statements say at all. She does not state that the government deliberately allowed the attacks to happen, so as to create a pretext for war; a new Pearl Harbour or something along those lines. Nor does she mention the mythical NORAD Stand down, which is also part of LIHOP theory.
And LIHOP is definitely a conspiracy theory; it assumes malicious intent on the part of the government leadership. Streisand does not go that far in her statements.


If you deliberately confuse the meaning of LIHOP, that's your mistake. So I would disagree with your attempt to oversimplify the term the way you just did; by writing 'Refusing to act = LIHOP ' No, LIHOP requires more than that.

 

[willhaven]

Still doesn't indicate that she believes he knew of the specific plot.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The former is simply incompetence, the latter is malevolence. The former is what happened, though some people believe the latter. DRG obviously believes the latter. As for Babs, all of the quotes I've seen from her in this thread point to the former.

I agree. I do not see LIHOP is her statements.

 

[alienentity]

I would add that the OP falls into the truther trap by accepting the false dichotomy of LIHOP or MIHOP, with no alternatives.

Streisand appears to be one of those who chooses, as do many of us, an alternative to either LIHOP or MIHOP: That is, the government did not conspire in any conscious way to either allow or make the attacks happen.

It simply did not act in a way that would have prevented the attacks. You can argue about the arrogance, incompetence or dysfunction of various US gov branches without ever accusing them of knowingly and deliberately allowing the attacks to happen.

But of course the truther lexicon does not permit this nuance or these options. A conspiracy is always present in the truther definitions.

 

[Cicero]

LIHOP implies that the government knowingly allowed the attacks to happen, that it understood the attacks would happen, and still refused to act.

That is what Babs is saying about Bush 43

There is no clear evidence to support that kind of claim. Indecision or lack of action is not actually LIHOP

.

It is more than that. Babs says Bush 43 "refused" to act.

'LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.'

Who is more of a "key" person in the government than Bush 43 was as POTUS?

from Wiki

And another definition elsewhere is much more pointed:
'furthermore these forewarnings were intentionally ignored, and allowed to happen, in order to have an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor.'
http://www.halexandria.org/dward255.htm

That is William Rivers Pitt's, a teacher from Boston, definition.

This is not what Streisand's statements say at all. She does not state that the government deliberately allowed the attacks to happen, so as to create a pretext for war; a new Pearl Harbour or something along those lines. Nor does she mention the mythical NORAD Stand down, which is also part of LIHOP theory.
That's what LIHOP means.

Says who? You and Pitt.

"8.BUSH WAS INACTIVE AND INDECISIVE FOR A FULL 7 MINUTES THE MORNING OF 9/11 WHEN INFORMED OF THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. IF BUSH HAD ACTED QUICKLY AND INTELLIGENTLY PERHAPS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN AN ORDER TO SHOOT DOWN THE PLANE HEADED TOWARD THE PENTAGON AND SAVED THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO WERE KILLED" Barbara Streisand October 26, 2004

Babs says Bush is to blame for not giving the order to shoot down the plane heading towards the Pentagon. What does that mean?

If you deliberately confuse the meaning of LIHOP, that's your mistake.

If you rely on Pitt for the definition that is your mistake. The troofers have a whole bunch of scenarios covered under the LIHOP scenario including "negligence" and failure to "prevent," or in Babs speak, "refusal."

"Finally, you conclude with the least common denominator approach of saying that the LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy “diverts the truth movement away from its unified belief that 9/11 was not properly prevented, investigated, and explained or that government officials, insiders and unknown guilty parties were never held accountable or reprimanded.” This implies the possibility of negligence, which I think the unified belief has moved far beyond. Your ultimate conclusion appears to be not that LIHOP/MIHOP is misleading and divisive, but that 9/11 researchers and activists should focus on LIHOP. "
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/lihop-vs-mihop/

 

[alienentity]

Look, I'm not going to continue to banter about this. You've deliberately oversimplified LIHOP to remove the conspiracy component.
That's not what LIHOP means. Don't pervert it so you can defend your accusation about Babs. Just let it go.

You sidestepped/avoided the Wiki definition
''LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.' '

That is NOT what Streisand said. Try thinking outside the truther box and you'll get the picture.

 

[Cicero]

Look, I'm not going to continue to banter about this. You've deliberately oversimplified LIHOP to remove the conspiracy component.
That's not what LIHOP means. Don't pervert it so you can defend your accusation about Babs. Just let it go.

If you are not satisfied that Babs is a LIHOPer, feel free to let it go.

You sidestepped/avoided the Wiki definition
''LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.' '

That is NOT what Streisand said. Try thinking outside the truther box and you'll get the picture.

But this is all about how troothers think. Why would Babs be outside their box?

The wiki definition? What weight is that supposed to carry? But if you want to use that definition, Babs says that Bush did nothing to intercept the flight heading for the Pentagon.

 

[willhaven]

Part of it boils down to a value judgment.

If one puts value in counter terrorism intelligence and feels that Bush had shifted priorities away from counter terrorism before 9/11, then the statement "refusing to act decisively and immediately" doesn't mean that he did it purposely in order to harm Americans. Does she communicate the idea that Bush was incompetent and/or negligent? Sure. Malevolent? Not necessarily.

One can only say Babs is definitively a LIHOPer if you're willing to read more into her statements than she actually communicates. It may be true, but none of these specific statements shows that to be a fact.

 

[Cicero]

Still doesn't indicate that she believes he knew of the specific plot.

Oh man, that guy is obnoxious. If they're married I'd be surprised if Babs wasn't a truther.

Hedging your bet is the best way to play it safe.

 

[willhaven]

Babs says that Bush did nothing to intercept the flight heading for the Pentagon.

What Babs doesn't say, is that he knew a flight was headed for the Pentagon and he didn't intercept it so that it would kill Americans.

 

[willhaven]

Hedging your bet is the best way to play it safe.

Show me a quote where she says Bush:
1) Knew the specifics of 9/11 before it happened.
2) He knowingly let it happen in order to harm Americans.

#2 is required to be a LIHOPer. You can say she believes #2 all you want, it doesn't make it true.

 

[Cicero]

What Babs doesn't say, is that he knew a flight was headed for the Pentagon and he didn't intercept it so that it would kill Americans.

What? Sure she does. Bush, after being informed of the attack on WTC, should have shot down FL 77, killing all aboard, so it would have saved the lives of those killed in The Pentagon. How would Babs suppose Bush could give an order to shoot down some unknown commercial airliner whose destination was unknown?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Show me a quote where she says Bush:
1) Knew the specifics of 9/11 before it happened.
2) He knowingly let it happen in order to harm Americans.

#2 is required to be a LIHOPer. You can say she believes #2 all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Oh c'mon now....

If some new, standard, twoof troll came by here and said the exact same thing that Babas is saying, they'd be branded a LIHOP'er lickety split. Where's the standards here?

The fact is, she's using innuendo about 9/11 to achieve her political ideals - which is the villification of Bush, and to get him taken to The Hague so that he can be tried for war crimes.

IOW, the end justifies the means.

The same applies to conservative loons that have jumped the shark and taken up the whole "birther" lunacy. They know that the originators of this particular piece of bs are most likely racists. They don't care cuz they want Obama out. Again, the ends justify the means.

Both - Babs and birthers - are embarassments to their respective political parties. And like anyone that is overly passionate about politics, they will defend those that hold the same basic politics.

It's human nature.....